Posted on 08/08/2006 4:55:32 AM PDT by publius1
When asked yesterday why the United States isn’t talking with Syria about the Lebanon crisis, President Bush replied, “Syria knows what we think.” ... But Syria is also unlikely to even consider doing what Mr. Bush wants — rein in Hezbollah and help halt the killing in Lebanon and Israel — unless its leaders know what potential rewards as well as punishments await them. And for that, the United States needs to offer a serious high-level discussion with Syria, and it needs to do it now.
Mr. Bush has always seen talking, by itself, as a reward. As a result, American diplomats have been barred from any serious contact with a host of bad and dangerous characters... That cold shoulder... hasn’t done anything to choke off nuclear programs in Iran or North Korea. And it’s not likely to persuade Syria...
Of course, talking isn’t enough. Mr. Bush’s impulse, even when he agrees to talk, is to lecture and not listen. The White House will have to hear what Syria wants and consider what inducements might be worth offering in exchange for Syria’s help.
That’s not appeasement. That’s negotiation...
After much internal roiling, Mr. Bush grudgingly agreed to talk to North Korea and has signaled that the United States may also be willing to sit down with Iran. But in the time it has taken for him to come to those decisions, North Korea has churned out plutonium for even more bombs, while Iran is on its way to mastering the skills needed to produce weapons-grade uranium.
...the price for not trying to talk will be more fury toward the United States and our few remaining allies in the region. That’s no reward.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
1. Because we didn't talk to N. Korea, they produced more plutonium for bombs, and because we're not talking to Syria, they're shipping guns to Hezbollah, but
2. Syria, North Korea, and Iran would stop building nukes and shipping rockets to terrorists and wouldn’t feel "fury" toward us and "our few remaining allies in the region" if the U.S. would just sit down and talk to them--and (oh, almost forgot) also give them--in the Times rather too-delicate vocabulary--"inducements."
Are they saying--really!--that because we’re NOT talking to Iran, N. Korea, and Syracuse, these nations are building nukes and shipping arms to terrorists? They hate us because we don’t talk to them? Burt if we talk to them, they’ll give up the effort to destroy Israel, abandon the dream of a restored 12th Caliphate, stop the nuke stuff, and renounce terror? Hunh?
Talking worked great for the last administration, didn’t it?
On the “inducements” issue—a little much like paring people not to burn down your house, isn’t it?
(My favorite line from this mush of illogic: "That’s not appeasement. That’s negotiation." My favorite notion is the idea that Syria can be induced to "help," but I don't even want to think what that word means to the Timesmen.)
No that's worse than appeasement, it's paying tribute.
On the other hand, talk is cheap.
If it doesn't go the way you want it, bomb later.
The stupidity of the Liberal is monumental. The stupidity of the Liberal is historic. The stupidity of the Liberal dwarfs all other forms of human stupidity that have ever existed on planet Earth.
Sounds like cowardice to me. These kind of people can not be trusted, they will turn on thier country and sell out their fellow Americans if we were ever invaded. The way these people act the Muslim clerics will be working overtime converting these cowards to Islam.
Remember that when Clinton was talking and buying peace in N . Korea they were building bombs under his nose? Remember when Clinton was taking to Arafat, Palestine was so peaceful?
Remember when Clinton was talking to China they were so friendly thay sent him money for his election, and we sent them technology for their Nuclear missiles.
Remember when Clinton talked to the Davidians at Waco?
Until you start handing over your lunch money daily.
The reward? They get to keep their country, after Israel is done with Hezbollah. The punishment? The same!
Why should the U.S. promise goodies to a complicit regime who has already reneged on their commitments to rein in their pet terrorists?
Stupidity this profound should hurt.
The article is very revealing for what it says about the left, here and in Europe. Their whole idea is to make it all go away but cutting the bad guys large checks.
Time was, every schoolboy knew what it meant to say, "Once you pay the Danegeld..."
I know what we can offer that Syria wants. "If you rein in the Hezbos, Dasmascus won't become smoking hole in the ground that glows in the dark."
This is the Left, and especially the Times's biggest fault. Whenever given a choice on which way to report a story, they ALWAYS report it from a starting point of "President Bush is wrong."
How about a lead sentence or paragraph that describes how wrong Syria is to disagree with the President instead of blowing more smoke up Assad's rearend? They never report it that way because they do not think Syria is wrong to supply Hezbollah with weapons. They consider the problem to be Israel's defending of itself, not Hezboallah (and Syria and Iran by proxy) attacks.
Yesterday I saw someone on my train reading the Times. I only saw three or four pages but four articles stuck out to me. One was a puff piece about how Nasrallah has become an icon. The second was how Hezbollah was much more formidable than Israel thought. The third was a giant headline about the marine rape trial. The fourth was all about Israel's causing civilian casualties.
So in the space of four pages The NY Times, bastion of truth that it is, revered a terrorist leader and his "army" while bashing Israel and the US's armed forces.
And they wonder why we think they are biased....
SSDD. The time for talking is past. It's now time for another form of communication: military force.
Everything is relative and negotiable.
Everything.
They think our enemies are the same way they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.